Thursday, July 31, 2014

Welby: "Israel has the same legitimate rights to peace and security as any other state"

The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has issued a statement on the Israel/Gaza conflict:

“You can't look at the pictures coming from Gaza and Israel without your heart breaking. We must cry to God and beat down the doors of heaven and pray for peace and justice and security. Only a costly and open-hearted seeking of peace between Israeli and Palestinian can protect innocent people, their children and grand children, from ever worse violence.

“My utmost admiration is for all those involved in the humanitarian efforts on the ground, not least the medical team and staff at Al Ahli Arab Hospital. Providing relief and shelter for those displaced is a tangible expression of our care and concern, and I encourage Church of England parishes and dioceses, as well as the wider Communion, to pray for them and support the Diocese of Jerusalem's emergency appeal.

“While humanitarian relief for those civilians most affected is a priority, especially women and children, we must also recognise that this conflict underlines the importance of renewing a commitment to political dialogue in the wider search for peace and security for both Israeli and Palestinian. The destructive cycle of violence has caused untold suffering and threatens the security of all.

“For all sides to persist with their current strategy, be it threatening security by the indiscriminate firing of rockets at civilian areas or aerial bombing which increasingly fails to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, is self-defeating. The bombing of civilian areas, and their use to shelter rocket launches, are both breaches of age old customs for the conduct of war. Further political impasse, acts of terror, economic blockades or sanctions and clashes over land and settlements, all increase the alienation of those affected. Populations condemned to hopelessness or living under fear will be violent. Such actions create more conflict, more deaths and will in the end lead to an even greater disaster than the one being faced today. The road to reconciliation is hard, but ultimately the only route to security. It is the responsibility of all leaders to protect the innocent, not only in the conduct of war but in setting the circumstances for a just and sustainable peace.

“While it is acceptable to question and even disagree with particular policies of the Israeli government, the spike in violence and abuse against Jewish communities here in the UK is simply unacceptable. We must not allow such hostility to disrupt the good relations we cherish among people of all faiths. Rather we must look at ways at working together to show our concern and support for those of goodwill on all sides working for peace.”

It is a carefully-worded equilibrium, offering compassion and understanding to the peoples of Israel and Gaza, and calling on both the Israeli Government and Hamas to pause, reflect, do penance and make reparation. And that requires humility: political dialogue requires peace, and peace demands justice and security.

Many will find Archbishop Justin's words sapless and vexing: an irritatingly Anglican via media which offers succour to both sides while reproaching them equally for their humanitarian failures and transgressions of the "age old customs" of Just War theory. But there is nothing in the Archbishop's lament to which Israel could reasonably object: the bombing of schools and hospitals and the killing of children is indeed appalling. But if civilians are being used to shield rocket launches and if mosques are being used to conceal stockpiles of deadly ordnance, what is one supposed to do?

Israel is blamed by many of the newspapers, broadcasters and intelligentsia for slaughtering the children Gaza. In truth, Hamas is killing its own. What kind of government hides its aggression behind the smiles of babies? What kind of leadership cloaks its terrorism beneath the innocence and laughter of its children?

But before you leap on the Archbishop's inept even-handedness or condemn him for his maddening moral equivalence, consider the paragraph on his website which follows this statement, for it tells us: "He fully accepts that Israel has the same legitimate rights to peace and security as any other state and to self-defence within humanitarian law when faced with an external threat."

This is unequivocal, but it is an offensive dogma which neither Hamas nor Fatah will accept. To them and their defenders, followers and supporters, Israel has no legitimacy and so no rights: jihad must be waged until every last Jew is cleansed from the land they call Palestine. To Archbishop Justin, this is a moral abhorrence.

Of course, all Christians prefer peace and long for justice and reconciliation. But if Israel has the same rights to self-defence as any other state, it has a moral right and an ethical obligation to wage a "war on terror". When did you last hear an Anglican bishop, let alone the Archbishop of Canterbury, support Israel's historic and legal rights? When did you least hear a bishop of the Church of England advocate militarised self-defence as the only rational path to peace when confronted by murderous Jew-haters who conceal their bombs below hospitals, their rockets in clinics, and their guns and grenades in schools and mosques?

The destructive cycle of violence must end. Archbishop Justin yearns and prays for the peace of Jerusalem.

Monday, July 28, 2014

While thousands of Christians flee Iraq, the Vicar of Baghdad keeps on going back

He calls them "My people". Not because he was born among them, or because he shares their religion, ethnicity or cultural identity. But because, as he says, he loves them. And that love transcends the politics of religion and the religion of politics, and history, social division and skin colour. "I love these people," he reiterates, and he explains what he means by "My people":

Firstly let me say what I do not mean. I am not only referring to those who are members of our church in Baghdad. We don’t have any church members as such; we have hundreds if not thousands who see themselves as part of our community. They are both Christians and Muslims. The Christians are of all different Christian denominations: Chaldean, Syrian Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Assyrian-Ancient Church of the East Old and New Calendar, Armenian Orthodox, Armenian Catholic, Roman Catholic and Presbyterian. Then there are a large number of our Church community who are not even Christian but Muslim both Sunni and Shia. So in reality I see all these people as my people in Iraq as my people. I would also include in my people all the members of the High Council of Religious Leaders in Iraq (the HCRLI), which I direct, and there it is not even just Christians and Muslims but also Mandians, Yazeedis and Shabach. So all these people are whom I would consider My People in Iraq.

Iraq is not the only place where I would consider that I have my people; fundamental to this group I would also consider those I work with in Israel and Palestine. For the work of FRRME is not just St George’s Baghdad and Iraq. We are about working for peace throughout the Middle East so Israel and Palestine is a major part of that. So here we are working intimately for peace amongst Jews, Christians and Muslims. This is also a vital part of our work. We are the only organization that is working actively in both Iraq and Israel and this is the work that the Lord has called us to do. Despite the risks we will not stop doing it because he who has called us will not fail us.

Meanwhile things continue to be very difficult in Iraq. The Christians who have fled Mosul are still in grave danger and many of them are “My People” and now you know what I mean by that many of My People come from Mosul/Nineveh and they go back to there homes often in the summer and had been caught up in the tragedy there and cannot return. ISIS continues to control much of Iraq and though it may not have taken Baghdad yet it does appear to have many so called “Hidden Cells” in Baghdad which will reveal themselves at the right time. So your prayers are still much needed.

And so, while hundreds of thousands of Christians flee the horrors of The Islamic State, Canon Andrew White keeps on going back for the sake of his people: to be with them, support them, provide and pray for them. That is his vocation: the summum bonum; the goal of his spiritual life. He doesn't know what the future holds, as he told John Humphrys on the BBC Radio4 Today programme. He just loves his people, and in their faces he sees the image of God.

His vision is to be the 'Vicar of Baghdad', to minister to his people; to help them make sense out of the pervasive false religion, anti-religion, nihilism and meaninglessness of the human condition. "Things are so desperate, our people are disappearing. We have had people massacred, their heads chopped off," he laments. His vision takes him beyond himself and concerns for his own safety: it is christocentric; looking to Jesus not simply in the wonder of His own person, but in His compassion for the world.

The Church of England has issued prayers for the persecuted Christians of Mosul. Believers are praying fervently, and sermons are being preached in churches and cathedrals up and down the land. In Westminster Abbey, the Very Reverend Dr John Hall leads by example and articulates prophetically:

..As we look back at the development over many centuries in the West of the freedoms we take for granted and at the end of a time when the law imposed penalties on heretics and demanded adherence to particular religious practices, we recognise that there is much of which to repent in our past. As we give thanks for freedom of religion and freedom of speech, even while we regret many of the opinions and attitudes that are freely followed and expressed, we see that there can be no return to an imposed Christendom.

This recognition intensifies our prayer for the people of the Middle East and parts of North and West Africa where a reborn militant Islamism seeks to impose an intensity of religious practice and adherence to one faith that allows no freedom of religion or of conscience or of speech. Our prayer in particular is for the Christians deprived of home and hearth, of their ancient communities and their settled way of life. The resurgence of active and destructive conflict between Israel and Palestine is another urgent cause for prayer. It seems deeply sad and strangely ironic that as we approach the centenary of conflagration in Europe with all that it implied for the rest of the world, so now we face a terrible conflagration in the Middle East with potential implications for Europe, America and the entire world. Pray earnestly that the West does not respond to the threat as we did a hundred years ago.

Our leaders need the Wisdom of Solomon and we ourselves need the assurance of the letter to the Romans from which we heard as our second lesson. St Paul was aware of the bloody persecution that threatened the emergent Christian community. He himself before his conversion had been responsible for severe assaults on the early Christians. But his comfort is to assure them that whatever they suffer, be it the loss of life itself, they can never be separated from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Most of us, perhaps all of us here, may pray with some confidence that the fate befalling Christians in Iraq and Syria, in Palestine and elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa, is unlikely to befall us. But however cushioned our lives feel or indeed are, we live with uncertainty. We cannot see the future. There may be many perils awaiting us. Whatever befall us, whether hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword, it will not, it cannot, separate us from the love of Christ, love that conquers everything.

But the preacher's danger is that when he has preached about a thing, he is prone to imagine he has done it. And the congregation's danger is that when they heave heard about a thing, they subconsciously believe they have done something about it. And the blogger's danger is that he is hardened under the noise of his own reproofs.

Augustine said that a preacher must take care to listen to his own sermon: "For he is a vain preacher of the word of God without, who is not a hearer within." Listening to a sermon is not enough. Reading a blog is not enough. Praying is something. But it is not all we can do. We can help Canon Andrew White care for his people by giving generously and sacrificially, for they, in the immense family of humanity, are our people, too. The Vicar of Baghdad intercedes for them. Jesus died for them. We share the same Father. Their suffering is ours. They are us.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Christianity in Iraq – "the end is very near"

"Things are so desperate, our people are disappearing," says Canon Andrew White, the courageous Vicar of Baghdad.

"We have had people massacred, their heads chopped off.

"Are we seeing the end of Christianity? We are committed come what may, we will keep going to the end, but it looks as though the end could be very near.

"The Christians are in grave danger. There are literally Christians living in the desert and on the street. They have nowhere to go.

"We do not want Britain to forget us. We - and I'm saying 'we' talking like an Iraqi Christian - have always been with the British because they have already been with us. Individual churches, individual Christians in Britain, have been a bigger help than anybody around the world."

But as the Sunni-Wahhabi-Salfist Jihadists of the Islamic State carry on cleansing with impunity, the United States says nothing; the European Union says nothing; and the United Kingdom does nothing. Millions of Christians across the Arab-Muslim world are being systematically persecuted, tortured, beheaded or exiled into the desert, and the leaders of the Western world don't even lift a finger in prayer.

Or perhaps they do pray, but as their words fly up, their thoughts remain below. And words without thoughts never to heaven go.

"We do not want Britain to forget us," is the plea of Canon White. And yet we have. Or most of us have. Or HM Government has. Christians are the world's most persecuted people, and still British foreign policy fails to reflect the appalling reality or agitate for religious freedom or make aid contingent on adherence to Article 18.

..the world's Christians fall through the cracks of the left-right divide – they are too religious for liberals and too foreign for conservatives. In the UK, it is socially respectable among the secular elite to regard Christianity as weird and permissible to bully its followers a little. This produces the surreal political reality in which President Obama visits Saudi Arabia and "does not get the time" to raise the suppression of Christianity in the oil-rich nation; and in which Prime Minister Cameron gets a broadside from illiberal secularists for the historically unquestionable assertion that Britain's culture is formed by Christian values.

And so "the end could be very near" for Christianity in Iraq, where the Chaldean and Assyrian churches have worshipped since the earliest centuries of the Christian era. Without Western intervention, the end will surely come. Christ built His church, and the gates of ISIS have prevailed against it.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Without freedom of religion and belief, what freedom is there?

Lord Alton of Liverpool initiated a debate in the House of Lords on 24th July concerning international compliance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights concerning freedom of belief. Here is his opening address:

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who will participate in this balloted debate, which draws attention to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. Article 18 states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.

Today we will hear from many distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House, including my noble friend Lord Sacks, who says in The Dignity of Difference:

“The great faiths provide meaning and purpose for their adherents. The question is: can they make space for those who are not its adherents, who sing a different song, hear a different music, tell a different story? On that question, the fate of the 21st century may turn”.

The urgency of that challenge was reflected in a recent speech by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right honourable Douglas Alexander. Among systematic violations of Article 18, he particularly drew attention to what he described as “anti-Christian persecution”, which he said,

“must be named for the evil that it is, and challenged systematically by people of faith and of no faith”.

I know that we will hear later from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who will expand on that important speech.

Two recent cases underline the universal applicability of Article 18. A young Indonesian man, Alexander Aan, was jailed for more than two years simply for declaring his atheism on Facebook. Mubarak Bala, a Nigerian, was confined to a mental institution for the same reason. Ben Rogers of Christian Solidarity Worldwide visited Alexander Aan in prison in Indonesia and campaigned for his release. Such welcome advocacy by a group of one religious persuasion working for the freedom of another, whose beliefs are different—hearing different music, telling a different story—is echoed in a letter by world Buddhist leaders, including His Holiness the Dalai Lama, calling for an end to violence against Muslims in Burma. The Dalai Lama is emphatic that:

“The violence in Buddhist majority countries targeting religious minorities is completely unacceptable. I urge Buddhists in these countries to imagine an image of the Buddha before them before they commit such a crime”.

Not only is Article 18 a universal human right; it is a human right that is violated universally. Last year, under the admirable chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Freedom of Religion or Belief, of which I am an officer, published Article 18: An Orphaned Right. It noted that,

“almost 75% of the world’s population live in countries with high levels of government restrictions on freedom of religion or belief”.

Thanks to major speeches by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and the Prime Minister, and the crucial work of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, the introduction of the European Union Guidelines on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the excellent work of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, this issue has been given greater prominence. I know that today’s important debate will contribute to that.

Yet, compared with Canada’s Office of Religious Freedom and its ambassador-at-large, the excellent Andrew Bennett, or the US State Department and the US Commission of International Religious Freedom, the Foreign Office has just one official specifically focused on freedom of religion, and only for a third of her time. The FCO has said that it wants to develop a toolkit on freedom of religion or belief for diplomats, stating that,

“every minister at the FCO is an ambassador for religious freedom, raising and promoting these issues in the countries with which they engage”.

But how will they do that? How are our diplomats trained in religious literacy? Compare the £34 billion spent on military operations since the Cold War with the paltry resources deployed in promoting Article 18 — in promoting religious coexistence, public discourse and dialogue, foundational to building peaceful societies in a world increasingly afraid of difference.

In an all too brief survey of worldwide violations of Article 18, I inevitably begin in the Middle East, where, in the midst of an orgy of violence and brutality, we are fast approaching a time when Christianity will have no home in its ancient homelands. In Syria, the brutal murder in April of the 75 year-old Dutch Jesuit Father Franz van der Lugt, who had served there for 50 years, working in education and with disabled people, illustrates why an estimated 450,000 Christians have fled. Followers of other religions, notably the Mandeans, Yizidis, Baha’is and Ahmadis suffer similarly.

In Iraq, a Christian population of 1.4 million has been reduced to 150,000. In recent weeks, the depredations, beheadings and crucifixions by ISIS are almost beyond belief. For the first time in almost 2,000 years, Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, no longer has a Christian community. Its churches are now closed, most having been desecrated. In what has been described as “religious cleansing”, ISIS says that anyone who refuses to convert and defies it will be,

“killed, crucified or have their hands and feet cut off”.

ISIS has taken a sledgehammer to the tomb of Jonah, replaced the cross with the black Islamic flag on top of Mosul’s St Ephraim’s Cathedral, and beheaded or crucified any Muslim who dares to dissent. This week in Istanbul, the head of Turkey’s Directorate of Religious Affairs, Professor Dr Mehmet Görmez, in his address to the participants of the World Islamic Scholars Peace, Moderation and Common Sense Initiative conference said that 1,000 Muslims are being killed each day, and that 90% of the killers are also Muslims. He said:

“They are being killed by their brothers”.

Yesterday, the archbishops of Iraq united in their condemnation of these events but also called on the outside world to help. The only people who have successfully withstood ISIS are the Kurdish Peshmerga forces. To its credit, the Kurdish leadership has been generously offering safe haven to Mosul’s fleeing Christians and has asked for international aid to help it do so. This crisis justifies huge humanitarian and resettlement aid that could include micro and business loans to help people to help themselves. The West must also press the Gulf to end the funding of ISIS. Where in Mosul is the “responsibility to protect”, let alone Article 18? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us.

Elsewhere, in Egypt, these are increasingly dangerous and menacing times for freedom of belief. As honorary president of the UK Copts, I saw the way in which Copts were targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood. Last year, in the single largest attack on Christians in Egypt since the 14th century, more than 50 churches were bombed or burnt. It was Egypt’s Kristallnacht. What priority do we give to Egypt’s minorities as we engage with the new President?

In Iran, the so-called moderate, Hassan Rouhani, in the 12 months since he was elected, has executed 800 people and imprisoned and tortured many others. Iran continues to target religious minorities, particularly Baha’is, whose cemeteries have been desecrated; 136 Baha’is are in prison, some since 2008. As “unprotected infidels” they can be attacked with impunity. Repression against Christians in Iran includes: waves of arrests and detentions; raids on church gatherings; raids on social gatherings; harsh interrogations; physical and psychological torture, including demands to recant and to identify other Christians; extended detentions without charge; violations of due process; convictions for ill defined crimes or on falsified political charges; economic targeting through exorbitant bail demands; and threats of execution for apostasy. What priority will our new chargé d’affaires in Tehran be giving these Article 18 issues when he meets the regime’s leadership?

I return now to Sudan and the treatment of Meriam Ibrahim, which was described by the Prime Minister as “barbaric”. In May, this young mother of two was charged, and sentenced to death for apostasy and 100 lashes for adultery. Having refused to renounce her faith, she was forced to give birth shackled in a prison cell in Khartoum. Happily, given a debate where we will be hearing so much that is so very sad and tragic, international pressure, often led by young internet campaigners, has led to her release. This morning, she arrived safely in Italy. However, Meriam Ibrahim’s case is not an isolated one. Archaic and cruel laws lead to stonings and lashings, with Al-Jazeera reporting that in one recent year, 43,000 women were publicly flogged.

In Nigeria, another crisis is looming for religion and unfolding on a daily basis. There are reports of collusion between elements of the military and Islamist forces. This week marks 100 days since Boko Haram abducted more than 200 schoolgirls in Chibok. Are we any nearer to finding them? My noble friend Lady Cox has just returned from Nigeria and will have much more to say about the situation and her report documenting that jihadist violence.

As the Minister responds to Article 18 abuses in Nigeria, might we hear something, too, about the plight of Christians in Kenya, who face increasing threats and attacks from al-Shabaab, and in Eritrea—another serious violator of freedom of religion? The UN has just established a Commission of Inquiry on Eritrea, and I look forward to hearing how we will assist its work.

I have focused extensively on the Middle East and Africa, but across Asia, Article 18 faces serious threats as well. We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the situation in Pakistan. Think of the bombing last September of the Anglican church in Peshawar, killing 127 and injuring 250, of the attacks on Shias and Ahmadis or of the imprisonment of and death sentences on Christians, such as Asia Bibi, charged with blasphemy. For challenging those laws, Shahbaz Bhatti, the Minister for Minority Affairs, was assassinated in 2011, and no one has been brought to justice.

Meanwhile, in Burma, Muslims are facing growing religious intolerance. In March 2013, I visited a village just outside Naypyidaw. In the charred embers of a burnt-out madrassah, I took statements from the few Muslims who had not fled. I met Rohingya Muslims and heard from ethnic Kachin and Chin Christians facing terrible persecution. Proposed new legislation to restrict religious conversions and interreligious marriage will hardly help; practical initiatives countering hate speech and intolerance might. Could we not ask the UN Secretary-General to visit Burma, specifically to address rising religious intolerance, and encourage the establishment of an international and independent inquiry into the violence in Rakhine state, Kachin state and other parts of the country?

Elsewhere in Asia, religious intolerance is rising, too, for example in Indonesia. I would welcome the Minister’s response to CSW’s new report, Indonesia: Pluralism in Peril, and the Government’s view of Prabowo Subianto’s attempts to undermine religious coexistence and his challenge to this week’s election results. There are also threats to Article 18 in India, with a BJP attack on an evangelical church in Uttar Pradesh last week; in Sri Lanka, where anti-Muslim violence has erupted; in Bangladesh, where, earlier this month, nuns were brutally attacked and beaten; in Malaysia, where a court has ruled that only Muslims can use the term “Allah”, even though Christians have traditionally also used that same term in their texts and in their languages; and in Brunei, where a full Sharia penal code is being introduced.

Turning to the Far East, I hope we will hear whether we have protested about the demolition of Protestant and Catholic churches there; the continued detention of the Catholic bishop of Shanghai, Thaddeus Ma, arrested in 2012; and the well-being of the Tibetan Buddhist monk and scholar Tenzin Lhundup, about whom nothing has been heard since his arrest in May, and the self-immolation of 131 Tibetans since 2009. In 2009, I visited Tibet with the noble Lord, Lord Steel. Together, we published our report Breaking the Deadlock and, in highlighting the religious dimension, we argued:

“Any attempts to resolve the political situation … must take due account is of the profound spiritual life of Tibetan people”.

In Laos and Vietnam, the situation is perilous; I have given the noble Lord details. We had a debate only yesterday about what some have described as genocide in North Korea. For 10 years, I have chaired the all-party group and I commend the Hansard report of yesterday’s debate to all Members of the House.

As I have outlined in a speech which rather inadequately has tried to set the scene for the many more detailed interventions which will follow, Article 18 is under threat in almost every corner of the world. As we approach the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, we should recall that, long before Article 18, it asserted the importance of religious freedom.

Societies which deny such freedoms are invariably unhappy societies. Research shows that there is a direct link between economic prosperity and religious freedom. In 1965, Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council’s proclamation on religious freedom, said correctly that a society which promotes religious freedom will be enlivened and enriched and one that does not will decay.

Article 18 is a foundational human right—many would say the foundational right—because, while there should be no hierarchy of rights and all rights are interdependent, without the freedom to choose, practise, share without coercion and change your beliefs, what freedom is there? As my noble friend Lord Sacks says, on this question, the fate of the 21st century may turn.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Jon Snow and C4 News "provide cover" for Christian holocaust

When the dreadful news of MH17 began to spread, and conjecture of which monsters were to blame for the murder of 298 people began to take the lead in social-media gossip, there was just one thing on Jon Snow's mind: that the tragedy would somehow "provide cover for an intensification of Israel's ground war in Gaza".

It was a curious phrase, not least because, like all those who select and prepare media news stories, the editors of Channel 4 News routinely determine which daily dramas will feature above the alternatives, and which information thereby might "provide cover" for other events. Lest one be in any doubt about Jon Snow's primary and essential concern, his C4 Twitter feed since the downing of MH17 is enlightening (click to enlarge):

You will note that all the pictures coming out of Gaza are of distressed and wounded children, which are, of course, deeply disturbing. But Jon Snow doesn't appear to have tweeted or RT'd even one picture of an armed Palestinian terrorist launching rockets at Israel. Nor is there a single picture of dead or injured Israelis. Are there no petrified Jewish children in Ashkelon?

It is quite shocking, though perhaps not at all surprising, that the aging abbot is abusing his position as lead presenter of Channel 4 News to focus on Israel's Gaza offensive, thereby "providing cover" for the murder, torture, rape and systematic eradication of Christians from Iraq and the whole Middle East. They have lived there for 2000 years. Their trauma is nothing short of a holocaust, but the Western media, when they mention it at all, relegate this "religious cleansing" to the level of an anecdote, and move swiftly on to the latest homophobic outrage or the manifest evils of Israel's Nazi Zionists.

Ten years ago, there were at least 1.5 million Christians in Iraq. Now there are around 400,000, most of whom are fleeing to the Kurdistan region for safety and refuge. Under Saddam, 60,000 Christians lived in Mosul. Now there is none. Nuns are being kidnapped and raped, priests tortured and beheaded, and ordinary Christians imprisoned in ghettos and forced to convert or die. Ancient churches are torched and monasteries desecrated. It's the same story in Syria, Egypt and Libya.

What is this hell if it be not a holocaust?

The Islamic State is marking Christian homes with an Arabic 'N' for 'Nasarah' (denoting Christian), just like Hitler used the Star of David to categorise Jews destined for the concentration camps. "Never again", we cried. And yet we stand idly by, spluttering about Putin, transfixed by Tulisa or mesmerised by the Downing Street catwalk.

The mainstream media aren't much interested in Christians - other than the homophobic bigoted ones who won't bake a cake. And our political leaders are so obsessed by the minority vote, and the FCO so consumed with religious equanimity and moral relativity, that they'll all bend over backwards to help the Iraqi Kurds, save the Bosnian Muslims or intervene to "prevent a bloodbath" in Libya.

Funny how much political capital and military effort is expended to aid tens of thousands of Muslims, but nothing at all to save millions of Christians. As historian Tom Holland tweeted yesterday: "Nobody in Europe should be watching the persecution of an entire religious community with equanimity. We've been there...". But out of his impressive 22,000 followers, this received just 45 'Retweets' and 21 'Favourites'.
The media are warped in their apprehension, and most of us are indifferent. Jon Snow is simply another left-leaning secularist preaching his gospel of enlightened relativity to fill the airwaves with anti-Israel and anti-Christian propaganda.

And using his C4 Twitter feed and TV studio to "provide cover" for The Islamic State while it effects a truly harrowing holocaust.

Monday, July 21, 2014

Direct News from Christians in Mosul

For Iraqi Christian Fadi and his young family it is a lonely wait to see
whether they will be executed soon.

Their Christian neighbours and friends have already fled the city of Mosul
in Iraq's north, which last month fell into the hands of Sunni jihadists
led by the Islamic State group, which espouses an extreme form of Islam.
Along with the rest of the city's estimated 25,000 Christians who had not
already fled years of kidnappings, bombings and shootings, Sunni militants
gave 36-year-old Fadi, his wife and son until Saturday to comply with a
brutal ultimatum: convert to Islam, pay an unspecified tax, leave the city or
die.

"Only my soul remains, and if they want to take that I don't have a
problem," he added, giving only his first name.

On Friday, Mosul's mosques called through loudspeakers for Christians to
leave, after centuries of being part of the once cosmopolitan city's social
fabric.

Fadi said he could not afford to flee and argued that the prospects for
those who did were hardly better.

Islamic State (IS) militants robbed departing Christians of their
belongings, he said, leaving them to face destitution in grim camps for the
displaced.

"They were stopped by members of Islamic State, who took everything they
had. Mobile phones, money, jewellery," he said, speaking of the fate of some
25 Christian families who had recently fled.

"When my cousin and friends, from three families, tried to plead with
them, they took their cars."

IS fighters took control of Mosul and swathes of north and west Iraq in a
sweeping offensive that began last month. Their leader has since then
declared a "caliphate" straddling Iraq and Syria.

The group claims its goal is to return the lands they conquer to a state
approximating that of early Islam, in which Jews and Christians who did not
convert had to pay a "jizya" tribute to their Muslim rulers.

"From one old woman they took $15,000 (11,100 euros). She asked for just
$100 of it so she could reach Dohuk. They told her that these are the funds
of the Islamic State, and we cannot give it to you," Fadi said.

Robbed of their cars and cash, many Christians were forced to walk to
safety.

- Exodus -

Some of Mosul's Christians might be able to afford to pay the jizya, but
they appear unwilling to take their chances living under the thumb of rulers
notorious for executing and crucifying their opponents.

"Maybe a few are still hiding in Mosul but I don't think any would have
decided to pay jizya or convert. There is no Christian who can trust these
gangsters," Yonadam Kanna, Iraq's most prominent Christian leader, told AFP.
"They even took wedding rings from women fleeing the city at
checkpoints... I am astonished they can claim to be Muslims."
In a purported statement issued by IS last week which detailed the
ultimatum for Mosul's Christians, there will be nothing left for those who do
not comply "but the sword".

Ahlam, a 34-year-old mother of two boys, and her husband carried their
children on their shoulders on their long march out of Mosul.

She described an exodus of hundreds of Christians walking on foot in
Iraq's searing summer heat, the elderly and the disabled among them.

"We first reached Tilkkef in a state of exhaustion. We hadn't had anything
to eat or drink for a whole day," she said, referring to a town some 20 km
(12.4 miles) north of Mosul where volunteers are picking Christians up in
their cars.

"My husband and I were carrying our children on our shoulders the whole
way."

Many Christians are making their way to the relative safety of the city of
Dohuk in Kurdish autonomous territory further north.

According to the IS statement, seen by AFP, any homes they leave behind
become property of the insurgent group.

"I left my home in Mosul, that my family built decades ago. And it was
taken away in an instant," Ahlam said with tears in her eyes.

"Everything's gone, all our memories. Our home has become property of the
Islamic State."

We can read, weep and pray, or read, weep, pray and do something., for these are our brothers and sisters in Christ

And ISIS/ISIL/The Islamic State is marking their homes. And it's not for a passover.

Nor is it a smiley face. It is the circled Arabic letter 'n', signifying 'Nasarah' (Christian). Once the dhimmi occupants are so identified and labelled, they can more easily be taxed (jizya), forced to convert to Islam, harassed to leave or be summarily executed by the Islamic State which now owns their property.

The Qur'an might say: "You have your religion and I have my religion", and in another place: "There is no compulsion in religion". But in the Islamic State, these verses are abrogated. Their creed is: "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression."

Under Saddam, there were 60,000 Christians in Mosul, where they had lived in fraternal coexistence with Muslims for 1700 years. In the Islamic State they have become less than pigs, outcasts, refugees in their homeland. And Canon Andrew White is guiding, providing, praying and leading them to safety in the Kurdistan region. They needs tents, mattresses, food, water..

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Stop the War Coalition urges war against Israel

The Stop the War Coalition was established in aftermath of 9/11, calling for an end to what George W Bush termed the "War on Terror". According to the organisation's Aims and Constitution, their principal objective is "very simple":

..to stop the war currently declared by the United States and its allies against 'terrorism'. We condemn the attacks on New York and we feel the greatest compassion for those who lost their life on 11th September 2001. But any war will simply add to the numbers of innocent dead, cause untold suffering, political and economic instability on a global scale, increase racism and result in attacks on civil liberties. The aims of the campaign would be best expressed in the name Stop the War Coalition.

You would think, given their righteous moral objective and benevolent humanitarian quest for peace, that this coalition might be broad, inclusive and non-partisan. It might even include a few Conservatives, perhaps those who opposed Tony Blair's decision to invade Iraq. Not at all:

We call on all peace activists and organisations, trade unionists, campaigners and labour movement organisations to join with us in building a mass movement that can stop the drive to war.

Despite being dead, their President is still named as Tony Benn. When you look at the list of Vice-Presidents - including George Galloway, Tariq Ali, Kamal Majid, Caroline Lucas - it ought to come as no surprise that the Stop the War Coalition's strategy for world peace includes war against Israel.

The headline is profoundly shocking. You have to delve into the article to discover precisely what they're calling for - a "legitimacy war" involving "the mobilization of a movement from below, combining popular resistance with global solidarity" (ie boycott, divestment, and sanctions [BDS]). But few fanatics read beyond a headline. According to Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, this strategy represents "the best prospect for realizing Palestinian self-determination". His notion of a "legitimacy war", he says, was "exemplified by Gandhi’s nonviolent victory over the British Empire and more recently by the success of the global anti-apartheid movement against racist South Africa".

It doesn't seem to occur to him that Gandhi's non-violent "movement from below" was deeply rooted in the Hindu ethic of Ahimsa, which requires that socio-political objectives are attained without causing injury or harm to any living being. Nor does it seemingly merit even a sentence of theological consideration that "popular resistance" means something very different to Hamas and Fatah from what it meant to the Indian independence movement: the Qur'an isn't entirely consistent with the philosophy of Satyagraha.

So here you have the Stop the War Coalition urging the "mobilization" of a "popular resistance" which, to the many millions of Salafi-Wahhabi-Islamists who are currently rampaging over the Middle East, is an exhortation to carry on 'cleansing' the land of idols and summarily beheading the kuffar.

It is legitimate to criticise Israel for its failings, but to single out Israel as a legitimate target for a just war is a malicious attempt to
delegitimise the Jewish State and stir up anti-Semitic sentiment on a
scale and ferocity not seen since the Nazi era. Here's the Stop the War Coalition marching yesterday in London:

"..what a picture. These are the people who stayed at home throughout the Syrian civil war, stayed at home when ISIS rampaged across Iraq, stayed at home when Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab carried out their atrocities across central Africa and showed no concern whatsoever when the Muslim Brotherhood was running Egypt into the ground. Yet they pretend to care about Muslims.

"And here they all are, coming out to scream because Israel is carrying out the most specific and targeted campaign in the history of warfare in order to stop Hamas – a group dedicated to the annihilation of all Jews – from firing thousands of rockets into the Jewish homeland"
(Douglas Murray in The Spectator).

Saturday, July 19, 2014

The imminent extermination of Mosul's Christians

Canon Andrew White has posted an urgent request for prayer: the Christians of Mosul, where they have lived for 1,700 years, are about to succumb to the ISIS interpretation of Sharia - you know, convert to Islam or pay the jizya or prepare to die. As the savvy Digital Nun observes, Christians have been in Mosul since before Mohammed was in nappies. She writes:

This item of news didn’t make the front page of today’s BBC web-site (it
is buried deep inside), yet it represents a sickening attempt to
violate the consciences of thousands of people and the very real
possibility of mass murder. It highlights the difficulty we in the West
have in dealing with the religious dimension of conflicts in the Middle
East. Part of the problem is that many of us no longer take religion
seriously enough to consider how it motivates people and are woefully
ignorant both of its teachings and its history. Most of us can’t get
inside the mentality of Isis and its particular understanding of Islam
so tend to dismiss the kind of ultimatum posed to the Christians of
Mosul as mere posturing. We believe in freedom of religion, we say, by
which we mean the freedom to worship according to our own beliefs. There
are a few limitations on such religious freedom. Human sacrifice, for
example, is not permissible, but by and large, we follow the principle
of ‘live and let live’. If you want to follow some cranky religion, you
do so; just don’t expect me to follow suit. That is not how a member of
Isis would see things. It is not how things are in Saudi Arabia. So what
do we in the West do?

What do we do, indeed.

We must, of course, pray for those who are suffering as if we were suffering with them. We might also send money, for Canon White seems to have to waste an inordinate amount of his precious time making appeals for the odd ten quid.

And we must ensure that our new Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond makes religious freedom and the persecution of Christians an absolute priority. William Hague never seemed to be overly concerned, and the sacking of Alistair Burt from his team at the last reshuffle dealt a blow to those who knew of his immense background efforts. But (and take it from His Grace) there are now those within government and very close to the Prime Minister who have every intention of bringing this issue to the fore, and we, too, must make our voices heard. Please don't just post on His Grace's obscure blog: write to your MP, badger the Foreign Secretary, pester the Prime Minister. As Martin Luther King said: “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Faith leaders unite: Assisted Dying Bill is a "grave error"

His (present) Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby often gets it in the neck, not least from some of His (former) Grace's more uncharitable communicants. Even when he makes a speech in robust defence of traditional marriage and orthodox Christian morality, he is mercilessly mocked and reviled for "caving in" or "betrayal" when he expounds a realistic understanding of the constitutional limitations of his office. His mind doesn't change; nor does the gospel. But, unless they are under a specific spiritual or political authority, there is no point banging people over the head if they dissent. One must simply agree to disagree.

Archbishop Justin has now joined more than 20 British faith leaders who are calling for Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill not to be enacted. It is absolutely the right thing to do. His message is, again, refreshingly unequivocal and uncompromising. In a joint statement ahead of the House of Lords debate, these principal representatives of all faiths are united in their opposition. They write:

As leaders of faith communities, we wish to state our joint response to Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill. We do so out of deep human concern that if enacted, this bill would have a serious detrimental effect on the wellbeing of individuals and on the nature and shape of our society.

Every human life is of intrinsic value and ought to be affirmed and cherished. This is central to our laws and our social relationships; to undermine this in any way would be a grave error. The Assisted Dying Bill would allow individuals to participate actively in ending others’ lives, in effect colluding in the judgment that they are of no further value. This is not the way forward for a compassionate and caring society.

Vulnerable individuals must be cared for and protected even if this calls for sacrifice on the part of others. Each year many thousands of elderly and vulnerable people suffer abuse; sadly, often at the hands of their families or carers. Being perceived as a burden or as a financial drain is a terrible affliction to bear, leading in many cases to passivity, depression and self-loathing. The desire to end one’s life may, at any stage of life, be prompted by depression or external pressure; any suggestion of a presumption that such a decision is ‘rational’ does not do justice to the facts. The Assisted Dying Bill can only add to the pressures that many vulnerable, terminally ill people will feel, placing them at increased risk of distress and coercion at a time when they most require love and support.

A key consideration is whether the Assisted Dying Bill will place more vulnerable people at risk than it seeks to help. We have seen, in recent years that even rigorous regulation and careful monitoring have not prevented the most serious lapses of trust and care in some parts of the NHS and within a number of Care Homes. It is naïve to believe that, if assisted suicide were to be legalised, proposed safeguards would not similarly be breached with the most disastrous of consequences, by their nature irrevocable.

The bill raises the issue of what sort of society we wish to become: one in which life is to be understood primarily in terms of its usefulness and individuals evaluated in terms of their utility or one in which every person is supported, protected and cherished even if, at times, they fail to cherish themselves. While we may have come to the position of opposing this bill from different religious perspectives, we are agreed that the Assisted Dying Bill invites the prospect of an erosion of carefully tuned values and practices that are essential for the future development of a society that respects and cares for all. Better access to high-quality palliative care, greater support for carers and enhanced end of life services will be among the hallmarks of a truly compassionate society and it is to those ends that our energies ought to be harnessed.

Doubtless Canon Rosie Harper takes the view that all of these holy and learned men (for men they all are), by exhorting Their Lordships to vote against the Bill, are lacking in compassion or some basic theological understanding. Doubtless she feels that even His Eminence Cardinal Vincent Nichols and His Grace the Most Rev Justin Welby are "personally requiring other people to suffer extreme agony on behalf of (their) own consciences", which, she avers, is "neither moral nor Christian". Doubtless she will (again) take His Grace's challenge as an "unpleasant and personal" attack, when it is nothing but an appeal for her to humble herself before God and acknowledge that opposition to this profoundly flawed Bill may be motivated by highly moral and profoundly Christian motives.

His Grace is of the view that the liberalisation of the law on 'assisted suicide' or euthanasia would be a dangerously amoral development, as the Lords Spiritual asserted when the issue was last presented to Parliament. This is not simply a theist perspective; it is consistent with the principles of Enlightenment secularism also. Natural law – that which constitutes rightness and justice – is common to all mankind. The Greeks and Romans articulated this in their philosophy, setting the foundation for St Paul and later philosophers. Thus did Cicero write of "true law, right reason, diffused in all men, constant and everlasting", and St. Paul reflected on "what the law requires is written in their hearts" (Rom 2:15). Hobbes defines the law of nature as "a precept of general rule found out by reason by which a man in forbidden to do anything which is destructive of his life".

Opposition to "do anything which is destructive of life" is one of the few general rules which unites all of the world’s religions. The Church of England's position on this matter is clear:

The Church of England cannot support Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying
Bill.. Patient safety, protection of the vulnerable and respect for the
integrity of the doctor-patient relationship are central to the Church
of England's concerns about any proposal to change the law. Our position
on the current Bill before parliament is also consistent with the
approach taken by the Archbishops' Council, House of Bishops and with
successive resolutions of the General Synod.

The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church states: "Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick and dying persons. It is morally unacceptable" (para.2277). Pope John Paul II reflected in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae that "we see a tragic spread of euthanasia, disguised and surreptitious, or practised openly or even legally. As well as for reasons of misguided pity at the sight of the patient's suffering, euthanasia is sometimes justified by the utilitarian motive of avoiding costs which bring no return and weigh heavily on society". And more recently Pope Benedict XVI stated that "freedom to kill is not a true freedom but a tyranny that reduces the human being to slavery".

The Orthodox and Protestant churches have expressed similar views, most notably the Baptists, who concluded that "a Christian should never recommend, or help with a suicide of an unsaved person because that would hasten the unsaved person's damnation and prevent any chance of repentance. It is an affront to God to take one's own life, both for reasons of his sovereignty but also because any murder is an attempt to annihilate his image in man (Gen1:26f)".

Similar sentiments opposing euthanasia may be found in the scriptures and/or ethical traditions of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism. Suffering is natural to the human condition, and the end of life does not need hastening but loving; there should be no easy escape, but dignity and care. 'Assisted suicide' is as morally repugnant as abortion; indeed, His grace is hard-pressed to comprehend those who repudiate the former while supporting the latter, for both are concerned with the termination of the seemingly deficient or unwanted; both have the distaste of eugenics – ending the ‘unworthy’ life. Just as the legalisation of abortion was never intended to open the floodgates that it evidently has, so the legalisation of 'assisted suicide' would mutate over the decades, and eventually lead to the ‘humane’ termination of all those who simply cannot be bothered to continue. What will doubtless begin with volunteers will eventually include conscripts; the ‘right’ to die may easily become an expectation, and even a duty.

Killing is not healing. In a culture that worships youth, beauty and physical fitness, the elderly, ugly and disabled may be seen as deficient, but they are also made in the image of God. And just like Christ suffered at Calvary, they must be exhorted to endure whatever life throws at them. And then, with Job, might they come to know that their redeemer lives. In the meantime, unlike Job, they need friends and comforters around them who can make them see that their life has worth, and that their witness is profound.

Will Canon Harper apologise to those devout men and women of God whom she grievously offended in Parliament (and elsewhere) by slandering their faithfulness and denigrating their grasp of theology and morality? Or is this post simply further 'trolling', as newly defined by her boss the Bishop of Buckingham?

The Assisted Dying Bill is quite literally a matter of life and death for society. But some Christians prefer to play the man rather than the ball, which they do usually because they lack confidence in their own case, or in their ability to argue their case, and so seek to suppress debate by screeching "bigot" or "troll", or puffing and blowing about how "extraordinary" and "toxic" it is to have an "unreconstructed right-wing" blog which is "unaccountable" to anyone.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Nazir-Ali to Carey: Falconer Bill would not have helped Tony Nicklinson

In explaining his change of heart on the matter of 'Assisted Dying', Lord Carey wrote in the Mail that watching the appalling suffering of Tony Nicklinson was instrumental in his reflection. He said:

It was impossible not to be moved by his argument, especially when he described the horrific pain he has to endure every day. He was supported in this legal action by Jane Nicklinson, whose late husband suffered from the terrible locked-in syndrome after he suffered a stroke.

A previously active, sports-loving family man, Tony Nicklinson had been rendered absolutely powerless, vulnerable and isolated, an experience he found intolerable.

But speaking on the BBC's 'Sunday Morning Live', Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali astutely pointed out that the Falconer Bill restricts intervention except in those cases where the patient's condition is terminal, specifically with a six-month life expectation. And so Bishop Michael's good friend George, who he says is undeniably warm and compassionate, is also somewhat confused.

No one will deny that Tony Nicklinson suffered appallingly; his condition imposed an almost inhuman degradation upon him which, he felt, ought not to be endured by anyone. But his condition was not medically terminal: no doctor at any time gave the crucial 'six-month' prognosis. And so Lord Carey has been reflecting on a case which, in fact, demands more than Lord Falconer proposes.

'Sunday Morning Live' then interviewed a disabled man who argued passionately for his 'right to die', while also not himself suffering a condition which is terminal.

We see here (already) the purposeful conflation of 'Assisted Dying' with euthanasia, and a manifest confusion on behalf of some very senior and influential voices who really ought to know better. Indeed, it is the 'thin end of the wedge' and 'slippery slope' made manifest: Lord Carey is (unwittingly?) making the case for 'Assisted Dying' in all cases where the continuation of life is deemed to be somehow lacking in 'quality'. This is why Archbishop Justin Welby is absolutely right to say that the Bill is "mistaken and dangerous":

It would be very naive to think that many of the elderly people who are abused and neglected each year, as well as many severely disabled individuals, would not be put under pressure to end their lives if assisted suicide were permitted by law.

It would be equally naive to believe, as the Assisted Dying Bill suggests, that such pressure could be recognised in every instance by doctors given the task of assessing requests for assisted suicide. Abuse, coercion and intimidation can be slow instruments in the hands of the unscrupulous, creating pressure on vulnerable people who are encouraged to “do the decent thing”. Even where such pressure is not overt, the very presence of a law that permits assisted suicide on the terms proposed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton is bound to lead to sensitive individuals feeling that they ought to stop “being a burden to others”. What sort of society would we be creating if we were to allow this sword of Damocles to hang over the head of every vulnerable, terminally ill person in the country?

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Carey, Carey, quite contrary

His Grace has reflected.

He has concluded, with regret, that the Rt Rev'd Dr Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, not only bears false witness; he bullies those with whom he disagrees. This is not only His Grace's observation: it has been corroborated by two peers, a very senior MP and sundry church officials. And his chaplain, Canon Rosie Harper, unable to defend her views on 'Assisted Dying' theologically (or reasonably), is content to defame and spread untruths about those who have the audacity to challenge her opinion. Both the Bishop and his chaplain hold positions of authority within the Church of England, and yet are content to use distortions, exaggerations, dishonest straw men and personal defamation to undermine the Church's doctrine and the authority of the House of Bishops.

It is not His Grace who needs to reflect. Perhaps the Bishop might consider that tweeting lies is not an edifying Christian witness and is manifestly incompatible with his role as a leader and shepherd. And Canon Harper might meditate on whether or not she can worship a God who required "the most extreme suffering" of His Son on a cross. After all, God is sovereign and has no need to shore up that sovereignty. Anachronisms and cultural constraints aside, surely He could have arranged a swift, merciful and compassionate beheading for Jesus, as he did for St Paul, instead of "requiring (him) to suffer extreme agony on behalf of (His) own conscience"?

How 'moral' or 'Christian' was it of God to 'require' the 'extreme agony' of crucifixion?

Now, to the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, who has today come out in favour of 'Assisted Dying'.

His Grace has long admired, respected and supported the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Dr George Carey. Since being made a peer in his own right (as opposed to ex officio), he has made some bold interventions for truth on behalf of Anglican traditionalists. But he is now retired: as cross-bench peer, he speaks on behalf of no constituency but himself, and certainly not on behalf of the Established Church. The bombshell he drops today, while the General Synod is gathered in York and (most likely) about to declare a unified position on the future of women's ministry, is unfortunate, to say the least.

While the current Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby writes boldly in The Times that Lord Falconer's Bill is "mistaken and dangerous", Lord Carey unhelpfully tells us via the Daily Mail that "The old philosophical certainties have collapsed in the face of the reality of needless suffering".

"Had I been putting doctrine before compassion, dogma before human dignity?" he asks, making the precise allegation recently deployed by Canon Harper against His Grace.

The inference is that ++Justin, who tragically lost a young daughter and has surely tasted grief, is "putting doctrine before compassion". For Canon Harper, his opposition to Lord Falconer's Bill is "neither moral nor Christian". And so, on this matter at least, Lord Carey is perceived by the world as enlightened and progressive, and ++Justin is seen as obstructive and lacking in compassion.

Now Bishop Alan of Buckingham and his chaplain Canon Rosie Harper find themselves in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with a homophobic bigot.

Monday, July 07, 2014

Bishop of Buckingham: His Grace 'the troll'

When one blogs, as a Christian, one is subject to all manner of competing authorities, tempted by a raft of confusing motives and buffeted by a legion of conflicting spirits. No matter how much one hopes to glorify God or speak prophetically the gospel of Christ to those who are being lost, all that is uttered is ultimately imperfect, and all that is done is a filthy rag.

His Grace's blog has plodded along now for more than eight years. Sometimes it has brought great pleasure, and occasionally it has done some considerable good. But for the most part it has been a daily drudge and an utterly thankless task.

One does not do this for the money or the approbation of man.

To be accused of 'trolling' by a bishop is a serious matter.

One expects occasionally to receive reasoned rebuke, and some of the chat-thread contributions over the years have been more than forthright in their condemnation of His Grace's homilies .

But to be accused of 'trolling' by a bishop gives pause for thought.

And profound heart-searching.

And deep spiritual reflection.

It appears that a chaplain may, with impunity, urge upon the nation a culture of death; preach against the official teaching of the Church of England; and insult her Christian brothers and sisters in the sovereign legislature of Parliament. But for His Grace to seek to expose this and reason against it is 'trolling'.

Blogging is a strange medium, and Twitter is stranger. When one has thousands of followers over multiple time-zones, the only way of reaching them is to tweet out the same message numerous times, as His Grace routinely does. And even then, on average, one reaches only about two per cent of one's followership. If one follows say 50 people, each of their tweets will remain in your timeline for an entire day or longer, and the content will be there to read each time you log in. If one follows say 5000 people, it is highly unlikely that you 'follow' them at all. Even when they tweet the same message multiple times.

His Grace sought clarification from the Bishop of Buckingham. Is it his view that His Grace is:

a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

"Yes," came the unequivocal reply.

Doubtless the writing of this blog post and tweeting it out constitutes further 'trolling'.

To be so accused by a bishop is a serious matter, especially when that bishop is one's own temporal overseer whom one has met half-a-dozen times over the years and with whom shares a number of passions, if not theo-political concerns. His Grace has also met the Bishop's Chaplain twice. Not, of course, that either would have been aware.

But, to both, His Grace is a troll, and, by definition, trolls are malevolent and sow discontent.

These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren (Prov 6:16-19).

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple (Rom 16:17f).

This blog will now fall silent for a period of voluntary reflection, if not permanent purgation.

Saturday, July 05, 2014

Canon Andrew White deserves a knighthood - Part III

Here is Part III of the documentary following the ministry of Canon Andrew White, the 'Vicar of Baghdad'.

Part II may be seen HERE, and Part I HERE.
Accompanying this, Canon White wrote:

Here is the final part of the video. I have just seen it. For those who don’t like medical things you might not like as it shows me having my stem cell treatment. The treatment is happening in our church clinic. If you are wondering why Sarah my assistant and director here is also doing medical things, well she is also one of our doctors here also being one of our dental surgeons.

His Grace has a distinct feeling that some might deflect this thread along another discursive meander..

Others may like to consider the comment on Part II by His Grace's longtime communicant, Mr Ars Hendrick:

So, I come on to this blog and sound off about things, being argumentative, sometimes even aggressive. And I know a fair bit about the subject so can usually hold my own, and I write for a living so am practiced at getting things down on the page effectively.

And then I watch this footage of a real Christian, and I am utterly ashamed of myself. And I realise how utterly distant I am from leading the life I profess to lead – what an utter fraud I am. And I feel ashamed of my glib words and my posturing and my arguments.

To see Cannon White spreading love and hope in a place that looks exactly like hell, but is somehow populated by the warmest and most loving people I have ever seen, is to look directly into the face of the true Christian life, the perfect window to my own shortcomings – to my own hypocrisy.

I really don’t feel that I want to post on this blog anymore, because I realise that I have absolutely nothing of value to say.

Mr Hendrick, you said it all.

Forget the knighthood: Canon Andrew White deserves a mitre and ought to be awarded the highest medal for gallantry.

Friday, July 04, 2014

Canon Andrew White deserves a knighthood - Part II

Further to His Grace's previous post, here is Part II of this crucial insight into the ministry of the 'Vicar of Baghdad' (who is serving the Lord in Iraq because the Church of England considered a London parish would be "too stressful" for a vicar with MS).

The sluggish delinquency of the Crown Nominations Commission

Guildford has been without a bishop now for more than a year: since 28th March 2013, to be precise, when the Rt Rev'd Christopher Hill retired and created a vacancy-in-see. Discerning bishops is a very slow process. The diocese has to form a vacancy-in-see committee, which then has to elect six representatives to join the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC), which then has to agree dates to sit over protracted weeks to meet in secret to sift the candidates. And when you consider that the CNC includes the two Archbishops and six members of the General Synod (three clergy and three lay), the process of coinciding diary dates is fraught with complexities (as is maintaining secrecy).

Two names are typically put forward to the Prime Minister, one of which is preferred, and (usually) appointed by the Supreme Governor. As His Grace has previously observed, it is an absurdly bureaucratic process which cries out for reform.

There was a debate yesterday in the House of Lords (Hansard) concerning the snail's-pace tendency of the Crown Nominations Committee in appointing bishops to vacant sees. It is almost comical in its observations of ineptitude and inadequacy:

Thursday, 3 July 2014.

11 am

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Bishop of Guildford: Appointment

Question

11.06 am

Tabled by
Lord Trefgarne

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Prime Minister is yet in a position to make a recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen in respect of a new Bishop for Guildford.

Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD): My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con): My Lords, the Crown Nominations Commission had its first meeting in early June and will have its second meeting on 21 and 22 July. The Prime Minister awaits the nomination from the Crown Nominations Commission and will then make a recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen, with the hope of an announcement in September.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: I thank my noble friend for his reply, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will. I mention my having just completed the lengthy but very successful process of choosing a new dean for Ripon Cathedral, in a new and vast super-diocese. Will my noble friend consider sitting down with the Archbishops’ Secretary for Appointments and the Prime Minister’s Appointments Secretary, both of whom do a magnificent job with very few resources, and perhaps with others who have been through this long and involved process, to review and come back with some proposals to streamline that process? Alternatively, should the church be free to appoint its own bishops? I declare an interest as high steward of Ripon Cathedral.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, because of the age profile of the current House of Bishops, I understand that a number of vacancies and some retirements are coming along. I know that the most reverend Primate is conscious of this. The last time this was considered in 2008, the previous Government brought forward some changes to the appointments process. This Government do not have any proposals to change any further but I am sure that these matters ought to be borne in mind.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab): My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a slightly broader question about public appointments which have been held up. Is he aware that since last Monday, the Science Museum Group—I declare an interest as a trustee—has been without a chairman, even though the process to reappoint the excellent Dr Douglas Gurr started as long ago as last summer? Numerous other appointments are awaiting decisions from the Cabinet Office or 10 Downing Street, of which the Science Museum is perhaps the most blatant example at the moment.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I very much take the noble Lord’s point. Leadership in all institutions and bodies is very important and I will take that back. Again, I am very mindful of the point that the noble Lord is making.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, would the Minister find it helpful if the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury was made aware of the concern of the House about there being sufficient meetings of the Crown Nominations Commission, so that when there is a pile-up of episcopal vacancies, as it were, there are sufficient meetings to address that? Is the Minister also aware that we very much hope to have legislation by the end of this year so that women can become bishops?

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: They would therefore be eligible, and much overdue, to come into this House.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, what the right reverend Prelate said last is of great importance not only in this House but to the nation as a whole. I wish the deliberations of the General Synod extremely well. I know that when we had a previous exchange the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury was going to be made aware of some of the concerns, and it would be extremely helpful if a record of our discussions today were made known to him.

Lord Howell of Guildford (Con): I shall ask a slightly narrower question than the Question on the Order Paper. Is the Minister aware that Guildford is a lovely place and that the cathedral at the centre is superbly sited, although it is in need of funds for repairs? Does he agree that there ought to be a whole raft of people eager to serve in this great role as bishop of Guildford? I hope there is an excellent range of candidates, one of whom will soon be appointed.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: I agree with my noble friend. I hope the appointment will be made soon. It is very important that dioceses have bishops at the helm. I am aware that Guildford is in a very beautiful county, the most wooded county in the country. It is a fine place.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab): My Lords, is Guildford a suitable place for fracking?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: I am sure that when the new bishop arrives he—or perhaps, if it is some time, she—will consider these things. The important thing is that we need an energy mix in this country. Fracking could well provide that. Clearly it needs to be done carefully and sensitively, but we should not pass this opportunity.

Baroness Berridge (Con): My Lords, I expect that the winds of change will blow through the Anglican Church later this month. Will the Minister outline whether the Government will take this opportunity to look at the selection process for appointments in slightly more detail? Previously, I lived in the north-west of England for nine years. Liverpool, Manchester, Warrington, Bolton, Blackburn, Burnley, Preston and Lancashire are not currently on the Benches of the Lords spiritual but, as of right, Winchester is. That diocese includes the Channel Islands, which are not in the United Kingdom. Is it not time that we had a system of appointment that saw our metropolitan cities represented as of right?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I can safely say that much of this is a matter for the church. There is legislation going back to the 19th century on these matters. At some point perhaps that might be looked at.

Lord Morgan (Lab): My Lords, would it not be desirable if the Prime Minister made no suggestion about appointing the Bishop of Guildford, as would be the case with the disestablished Church in Wales? Would that not greatly liberate the church as an independent body free from the trammels of state interference?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: I am not sure that I am inclined to that view. Obviously the Church in Wales and the Church of England have taken different paths. That is a matter for the Church of England.

Lord Deben (Con): My Lords, we should be careful because the Church of Rome appoints its own bishops and takes a great deal longer than the Church of England, which is itself very dilatory. Changes do not necessarily speed up the system.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: I am a great believer that if one does not want too much change, one should have some change.

Lord West of Spithead (Lab): My Lords, the House is not sitting tomorrow. There was mention of Her Majesty. Tomorrow, Her Majesty is naming the first fleet carrier to have been built since the Second World War. It is the work of 10,000 men and women around our country—a masterpiece of engineering. Would the Minister like to acknowledge and welcome this marvellous event tomorrow?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, the whole nation is extremely fortunate to have a head of state who works so hard on our behalf.

The debate moves comically from the matter of the vacancy, through the beauty of Surrey, to fracking, to disestablishment, to the greater incompetence of the Roman Catholic Church and finally to the naming of a Royal Navy carrier.

There is a hope of an announcement in September. A vacancy of a year-and-a-half and only a hope of an announcement? And a "pile-up of episcopal vacancies" is imminent?

There was deadlock over the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury to succeed Rowan Williams, but still no reforms were proposed to resolve the incompetence. If a diocese can do without a bishop for two years, why does it need one at all? Has anyone in Guildford really noticed? Has ministry suffered? Is Christian witness impaired?

His Grace has said this before, but in the appointment of bishops it is time to let democracy
flow like a river. It is unacceptable that the Church of England should sustain the facade of democracy through secretive committees of the elite who then introduce
additional members to ‘improve’ the representative character of that
committee.

Give churchgoers the vote. It might not stem the decline, but it would
reinvigorate communion and the processes of participation. His Grace is
aware that churchgoers are not the same as parishioners, and that this
has implications for the nature of establishment, but a degree of
democratic accountability would compel bishops and archbishops to focus
on ministering to their sheep, instead of chasing after the
Guardian-reading goats and indulging disproportionately in
Thought-for-the-Day sound-bites on relatively trivial matters of gender, sexuality and fracking.

The only way of repairing the gulf that has grown between the laity and
the episcopacy is for the latter to be made more accountable to the
former and that means being more in communion. We are not talking about a
ballot box at the altar, but of creating an inspirational culture of
active participation which renders the episcopacy accountable to the
clergy and both more accountable to the laity who are all accountable to
God corporately.

Never again must we have a committee which is deadlocked leaving ordinary
Anglicans to #prayfortheCNC (which leaves the majority twiddling their
thumbs). If the Archbishop of Wales can be elected by an electoral
college; if the Pope of Rome can be elected by a Conclave of cardinals;
if the Pope of Alexandria can be shortlisted by 2,000 ordinary members
of the Coptic Church of Egypt (and the final one selected by a child),
it is utterly reasonable (not to say a procedurally imperative) for the
bishops and archbishops of the Church of England to be democratically
elected.

This would have the effect of binding the laity closer to the clergy and
the episcopacy. As democratic politicians know, when the grassroots are
involved, they feel valued. When they feel valued, they work better.
It’s just love in action, you see. When you ask Anglicans to pray for a
secret committee meeting at a secret location, they are blind and
directionless, like sheep without a shepherd. When they know for whom
they are praying and why, they discern wisely and respond to the
shepherd’s voice (or, if necessary, the sheepdog’s growl).

His Grace knows that this ‘modernisation’ won’t go down too well in some corners. But the Early Church upheld the principle of Vox Populi, Vox Dei
– the voice of the people is the voice of God. One can better lead a
divided church when one is both gifted by God and empowered by God’s
people to lead it.

Wednesday, July 02, 2014

Canon Andrew White deserves a knighthood

He doesn't care about temporal honours, of course. You only have to hear the 'Vicar of Baghdad' preach, or take a few minutes to watch the above short film (parts 2 and 3 to follow), to appreciate that the race he runs is for the crown of Christ's glory, and the reward he awaits is in heaven. He doesn't want a knighthood or a CBE: he wants our prayers, our awareness of the plight of his flock, and our generous donations to aid his ministry in this time of appalling suffering and tribulation.

He has lost a thousand of his parishioners over the past year alone - murdered by Muslim militants; many of them summarily shot or beheaded. He has recently been speaking to numerous fellowships in the UK to raise awareness of the situation in Iraq, and he received death threats last week from ISIS/ISIL (or IS [Islamic State], as they now wish to be called). Notwithstanding the danger, he has returned to St George's in Baghdad to continue his work. He wrote:

We go back to Iraq on Tuesday. There are so many needs to provide and we thank our Lord for how he has provided for us to meet these needs through you. We have so many Christians who have literally been ousted from their homes with nothing, they are living on the streets.Please pray that we may be able to show them the love of Jesus and provide their needs.

The Islamists are trying to eradicate the symbol of the cross from their new Caliphate.

There was no Mass in Mosul last Sunday for the first time in 1600 years. Those Christians who risk worship must do so in silence, praying under new Sharia regulations that have silenced every church bell in the city.

There are reports of torture chambers, public beheadings and crucifixions. "Since the fall of Mosul, a litany of evils has replaced the liturgies of the Christians there: a young boy ripped from the arms of his parents as they ran from the ISIS advance and shot before their eyes, girls killed for not wearing the hijab.."

Canon White suffers from MS. As a result of that debilitating affliction, he was told by the Church of England that they were unable to recommend him for a parish in London because it would be "too stressful".

So they sent him to Baghdad.

Where he has ministered now for 15 years.

He is now helping refugees fleeing from the cities of Northern Iraqi. Hospitality and aid are coming from the Kurds on the plains of Nineveh.

Canon White needs our help to continue his work among the homeless, traumatised and dispossessed Christians of Iraq.

His Grace is having meetings with politicians to discuss how HM Government can assist in Nineveh. He will recommend and protected enclave - arms with weapons, if necessary.

Please give what you can HERE, and offer your prayers up to God that the gospel will continue to be preached across those lands where these Islamist thugs are wreaking havoc. They have a five-year plan:

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)